AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 228 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu is involved in four crimes. The last prejudicial activity was on 9.06.2023 and the crime was registered on 10.06.2023. The detenu was arrested on 12.06.2023. It seems that the detention order was passed while the detenu was in the judicial custody.
It is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bail was granted subsequent to the detention order. However, he could not be released due to the detention order.
The detention order was passed only on 20.07.2023. It is to be noted that all the crimes committed by the detenu are within the Mattanur Police Station, Kannur. The delay explained in the matter was that after the last prejudicial activity, six months have not been elapsed. That cannot be a valid explanation. There must be a live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order. If the live-link is snapped, it will become fatal to the detention order. If there is no explanation as to the delay in passing the detention order, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required.
This W.P. Crl. is disposed of as above.